Very interesting. Can you provide a link to the reports?
Single age U teams make sense. If numbers are too small, kids can play in older U bracket, same as now, but more flexible.
Any thoughts on enforcement?
Originally Posted by CageSage
Originally Posted by VaLaxDad
Great points. I have tried to take this issue up with others on BOTC, with little reply.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The Problem is that US Lacrosse groups age every two years, U15, U13, U11, U9. So boys will be playing against other boys who are two years older. If they did one year age groups it would be better for all.
BOTC did an exhaustive report on our discussions with US Lacrosse regarding age group controversies.
US Lacrosse agreed with BOTC's perspective that single year U-age groups must be introduced to improve the integrity of the youth game. Their response however was that there are an insufficient number of players in some of lacrosse's smaller markets to allow single age groups to be the norm.
Our perspective was that US Lacrosse should announce single age group U-age brackets and allow those smaller market teams to simply play in the proper age group of the oldest player on the team.
BOTC has found that US Lacrosse not only moves glacially but is largely out of touch with its constituency, particularly in the hotbed areas of New [lacrosse] and their own Baltimore backyard. When we last spoke, US Lacrosse was encouraging BOTC to engage with Northern California as an emerging market. Our counter was that there is sufficient work here on the east coast to establish a solid age-based foundation.
Needless to say, we have heard nothing back from US Lacrosse in the last four months. If it was not for the engagement with the Long Island Metropolitan Lacrosse Foundation (the local US Lacrosse Chapter), we would not even know that a national organization exists.
